Sina Khanifar

Analyzing the Carrier's Voluntary Unlocking Agreements

A year ago US cell carriers agreed to implement more lenient unlocking policies. I compared what they committed to do with what they actually did. Here are the results:

(I made this graphic and am releasing it to the public domain - feel free to use it however you want, but a link back to where it originally appears on RepeaterStore would be much appreciated.)

Summary:

Sprint and T-Mobile have failed to fulfill half their own voluntary commitments.

Verizon has the most lenient policy: they’ve almost entirely stopped locking their devices.

Update 02/17: Verizon may only have such a liberal unlocking policy becuase the FCC required it as part of their 700MHz Block C auction.

AT&T has met almost all their unlocking commitments.

The voluntary measures are missing a critical criteria: interoperability.

Third-party unlocking is still critical. Long overdue reform of the DMCA’s anti-circumvention law is the only way to protect a consumer’s right to unlock.

The “Voluntary Agreement”

In December 2013, the wireless trade group CTIA wrote a letter to the Tom Wheeler and the other commissioners of the FCC. That letter announced that all four of the major carriers had committed to adopting six voluntary measures to make unlocking cell phones easier for consumers.

That “voluntary” agreement came at the last minute, after months of pressure from the FCC. In late 2012, the Librarian of Congress had removed an exemption from the DMCA for cellphone unlocking. Consumers were appalled. Without an exemption for using third-party software to unlock devices, the only way to break phones and tablets free from carrier’s software locks was by asking the carriers themselves. Trying to negotiate anything with a wireless carrier’s support center is infuriating, let alone an unlock code.

The President spoke out for the need for better unlocking practices, and the FCC threatened to impose new regulations on the carriers. But Wheeler gave the carriers an out: if they were able to commit to voluntarily improve their policies by the end of 2013, he wouldn’t push for regulation. So on December 13th, just a few weeks shy of Wheeler’s deadline, the carriers came up with six “voluntary” unlocking principles and promised to implement them within a year.

Earlier this week, the FCC announced that it was “proud to report that the country’s major providers have met their commitment.” I’ve spent much of the last two years advocating for the right to unlock and modify devices (cellular or otherwise), so I was particularly curious to check out exactly how each carrier has implemented the principles set out in the CTIA’s Consumer Code for Wireless Service.

What the carriers promised:

Disclosure

Each carrier should post clear, concise and accessible policies for how they’ll handle unlocking postpaid and prepaid devices.

Postpaid policy

Postpaid customer’s phones should be unlocked by carriers for:

their customers

former customers with accounts in good standing

individual owners of eligible devices,

If either:

their contract has ended,

their device financing plan has been completed,

or an early termination fee has been paid.

Prepaid policy

Prepaid phones should be unlocked no later than one year after initial activation, as long as “reasonable time, payment or usage requirements” are met.

Notification

Carriers should notify customers that their devices are eligible for unlocking or automatically unlock user’s devices once they’re eligible for a free unlock. For prepaid customers, that notice can occur at the point of sale or via a notice on the website.

Response time

Carriers should unlock devices within 2 days of receiving a request, or at least send a request to the OEM within 2 days, or explain why the device can’t be unlocked or they might need more time.

Deployed personnel

Carriers should unlock devices for deployed military personnel who are customers in good standing as long as they show deployment papers.

What’s missing: interoperability

The most significant missing component from the “Consumer Code” is a commitment from carriers to accept unlocked devices on their networks.

Interoperability is an obvious and critical piece of what makes unlocking valuable. If you unlock your phone, you need to be able to take it to another carrier and use it. Sure, in some cases the technologies differ (for example CDMA vs GSM), but with the rollout of LTE and modern smartphones with mutli-band, multi-technology support (including the iPhone), that is a decreasingly common barrier.

But many carriers, most notably Sprint, specifically say that they won’t activate phones that were originally sold by another carrier. That’s despite the cellular technologies the phones use being entirely standardized.

In Sprint’s case, those restrictions even apply to their own MVNOs. Virgin Mobile devices run entirely on Sprint’s network. But even if Virgin Mobile unlocks it for you, Sprint won’t activate it for use on a prepaid or postpaid account. It’s patently absurd: there’s simply no good reason to prevent users from bringing their own devices - in fact, it makes it even hard for consumers to switch to your carrier. The only justification for that kind of policy is to gouge customers and force them to buy more expensive, “carrier-approved” devices that come with 2 year contracts.

Verizon is the only carrier that seems to have realized how ridiculous “locking” consumer’s devices is in the first place. They’ve almost entirely stopped locking phones, and make it trivially simple to unlock any phones that may have a lock. But even they don’t make interoperability simple. Their Bring Your Own Device" program makes it clear that your phone needs to be a “unused Verizon phone” to be elligible.

Update: It turns out Verizon isn’t so wise after all. They were apparently required to unlock phones by the FCC when they bought licenses in the 700MHz Block C auction.

Reforming the DMCA is still critical

It’s worth taking a step back and examining the absurdity of these locks. If you’ve paid for your AT&T phone, committed to a 2-year contract, and agreed to an “early termination fee,” what purpose does a lock really serve? If you’ve paid cash to purchase a prepaid device, why should it come locked to just one carrier?

There’s plenty of evidence that locks serve little real commercial purpose. Verizon’s business hasn’t suffered since they stopped locking their phones. Countries like China and Israel have made locking devices outright illegal with no harm to their wireless industries and plenty of gain for consumers. But unfortunately it’s unlikely that Congress or the FCC will take action to implement a similar policy here in the US.

That’s exactly why the right to unlock and modify electronics is critical. Corporations may be able to sell us locked-down devices, but consumer’s should at least have the right to take action and circumvent those locks as they see fit.

Unfortunately a shortsighted and clumsy provision of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act can make it completely illegal for consumers to modify the devices, software and content they purchase.

The DMCA’s “anti-circumvention provision” was a shortsighted law written under pressure from the content industry in 1998, obstensibly with the goal of preventing piracy. But the provision includes a problematic legal loophole: it can make it a crime, punishable by 5 years of jail and $500,000 in fines, for circumventing a “technological protection measure.” And that penalty can apply even if there’s absolutely no copyright infringement.

Though Congress passed a bill in August of last year to reinstate a temporary exemption to the DMCA for unlocking, that measure will only last until the later this year. As it stands, we may well lose our right to unlock our devices without carrier permission when the Librarian of Congress announces the results of the rulemaking in a few months time.

There’s a simple and easy fix to all this. Congress could pass a bill clearly stating that it’s not illegal to circumvent a lock as long as there’s no intention of copyright infringement. That’s exactly what the Unlocking Technology Act would have achieved if it were passed back in 2013. But as is often the case in Congress, the bill was stalled due to opposition from special interests.

AT&T

Postpaid policy: AT&T will unlock postpaid phones for their own customers whose phones have been active for at least 60 days. They’ll also unlock devices for past customers, and for people who have bought a second-hand device, as long as the phone is not stolen or actively being used on someone else’s account.

Prepaid policy: Prepaid AT&T devices will be unlocked as long as they have been active for at least 60 days and have no unpaid balance.

Notification: I was unable to find any information about whether AT&T has implemented any notification system to let prepaid customers know of their unlocking eligibility. I spoke to two customer service representatives who gave me conflicting accounts of how notifications might be delivered, and the official unlocking website was unclear.

Response time: AT&T says on this page that they will unlock phones within 2 business days.

Deployed personnel: AT&T will unlock phones and tablets as long as personnel and provide proof of deployment. But AT&T, “at its sole discretion, may limit the number of devices military personnel can unlock” - it’s not clear exactly how many devices a potential limit might set in at.

Verizon

Verizon doesn’t lock any of their 4G LTE or 3G devices, other than their “Phone-in-the-Box” devices, which are trivially unlockable with either the code “000000” or “123456.” So I automatically gave them credit for all the other categories.

Update: Verizon were apparently required to unlock phones by the FCC when they bought licenses in the 700MHz Block C auction, hence their more reasonable unlocking policy.

Sprint

Disclosure: Sprint provides information about their unlocking policy online here. But those policies can’t be described as “clear, concise and accessibl,”. The policy described on that page only applies to postpaid devices. The policy for prepaid devices is hidden two links away at this URL. A strange and artificial distinction is made between “domestic” and “international” unlocking, the latter of which is only available to current Sprint customers. The “domestic” unlocking category is again broken down into two subcategories: “Master Subsidy” and “Domestic SIM” unlocks.

Postpaid policy: Sprint’s postpaid unlocking policy breaks unlocking into two categories, “for domestic usage” and “for international travel.” Sprint says that they will only perform an “International SIM unlock” for active customers. There appears to be no provision for unlocking phones for international use if you are not an active Sprint customer, which is one of the requirements of the CTIA’s “Consumer Code.” Furthermore, they place restrictions on the number of devices you can unlock: for example, consumers don’t qualify for an “international” unlock if they’ve unlocked a different phone in the past 12 months.

Prepaid policy: Sprint says on this page that it will unlock a prepaid device if “The device has been active on the associated account for at least 12 months with the account active at that time.” Though this is a bit confusing, the FAQ indicates that they “may” unlock devices whose accounts are in good standing, even if you are not the original owner. I tentatively give them the benefit of the doubt, even though the language they use is very unclear.

Notification: Sprint says that they will “generally” notify postpaid users via SMS or a notice in their bill if they are eligible to have their device unlocked. Postpaid users are only notified via Sprint’s website.

Deployed personnel: While Sprint claims that it “greatly appreciates the service that our U.S. military men and women provide at home and abroad,” their unlock policy has restrictions that doesn’t read that way. Specifically, it refuses phone unlocking for any personnel who has “previously unlocked another device within the past 12 months.” That’s well outside the voluntary guidelines of CTIA’s Consumer Code. What happens if a user’s phone or tablet is damaged or breaks while deployed?

T-Mobile

Postpaid policy: T-Mobile will unlock postpaid devices but adds restrictions preventing consumers from unlocking more than 2 devices per line of service in a 12 month period. They also require devices on their monthly plans to have been active for at least 40 days, even if the contract expires after a month under T-Mobile’s uncarrier policies and all dues have been paid. That requirement (basically “the length of completed contract must be longer than 40 days”) violates CTIA’s Consumer Code, which states that consumers should be able to unlock any device once it is out of contract.

Prepaid policy: T-Mobile will unlock prepaid devices, but strangely they require that the “The [prepaid] account must not be canceled and in good standing.” That means if you buy a prepaid device, use it for a year then cancel your service, you can’t get your phone unlocked. They also have a clause saying that “T-Mobile may request proof of purchase or additional information in its discretion.” Hardly a clear-cut policy.